"A rose will bloom wherever." True? Experiences?

[fircone]

Ds is by all accounts very bright.

He is off to the local comp this September, which is very good, the best in the county even, but obviously not an academic powerhouse.

Please reassure me that even though he won't be doing classics and wearing a blazer and tie he'll do as well as those who do!

Wiggly - dying to ask - was it a school in the NE?

I think you're right that the state v. private arguement is slightly different north of the border - maybe the fact that Scotland tends to lean more to the left has something to do with it? Either way, I take the approach that all schools are different, just as all children are different, and what is right for one will not be right for another. I don't think a private school is necessarily better, and don't think a state school is always the poorer choice.

I think the saying is fundamentally flawed. Of course a rose, or any flower, won't bloom wherever. Stick a sun-loving plant in deep shade, or stick it in a stinking bog and it's not going to bloom is it? Ditto to sticking a really bright child in some god awful "school" on a sink estate. They will inevitably be dragged down by their surroundings and the lack of ambition.

However, the average local comp is very different from that scenario. Plus, a plant can get by, and a rose bloom, if a dedicated gardener is looking after it and improving its situation. The same goes for a child and their parents. And as far as I can see a major benefit of the local comp (which I didn't get at a private school) is a real world view and arguably more choices at the end of the day. Oxbridge only really matters in the world of academic ivory towers.

Fennel - That Reay report is a laughable narrow and small sample : "248 parents and children from white middle-class homes in London and two other unnamed urban areas. Families were selected which had opted to send their children to average or badly performing local state schools despite being able to afford private education or to move closer to a better state school. More than 80% of the parents were educated to degree level, in 70% of the cases one or more parent worked in the public sector, and most described themselves as leftwing or liberal."

"248 parents and children" probably means that number needs to be divided by three to get the number of pupils involved in the study, do you think?

And in any case, the Sutton Trust research I linked to, says that children who go to independent and selective/top state schools go on to the better universities in spite of not always getting better academic results. So something else is going on. (PS will look later for the bit that says most comps send no pupils to Oxbridge each year - it's a long report and I haven't time to re-read it now, sorry.)

All you brighties who received an excellent state education are really kidding yourselves that the same thing is on offer for your own children. Unless your child is going to go to one of the very top state schools, I think you might be disappointed.

General Studies A Level anyone?

twinkle - " And as far as I can see a major benefit of the local comp (which I didn't get at a private school) is a real world view and arguably more choices at the end of the day"

I couldn't agree more from my own experience. I was a brightish child that was spoonfed in my comfy little private school. Such a nasty shock to realise that wasn't going to happen everywhere Self-reliance and determination are very valuable skills too.

Swedes - your comment about going to an independent school enables you to get a university place with a lower offer than applicants from the state sector is completely and utter bull, sorry.

As a proportion more private school pupils apply to Oxbridge than state school pupils, so not surprising that there are far more indepently educated students at Oxbridge. Agreed Oford and Cambridge need to do more to encourgae state school applicatnts,a dn the redress the balance, but the rest fo the russell group do OK in this area.

As a general rule of thumb, if you are degree educated, you have a better paid job and value education as a whole, so are likely to be able to afford to send your offspring to private school, and thisnk the cost worthwhile. Your offspring will have a tendency to be bright (nature) and smaller class sizes will maybe help them achieve a couple more points at A Level than they may otherwise have done. That's the general reason for those statistics - not that comprehensives are crap.

I don't like your post either:
'All you brighties who received an excellent state education are really kidding yourselves that the same thing is on offer for your own children. Unless your child is going to go to one of the very top state schools, I think you might be disappointed.'

The majority of comprehensives are good enough to enable those that are capable of going to university to get there. Admittedly careers advice could be better, but I have no evidence that careers advice is any good in the private sector either. IMO my childrens' reasaonable state secondary will be perfectly sufficient for them to get a place at a decent university - they are bright, very much supported at home and will benefit from mine and dh's advice and guidance (mine a lot as I work in the university sector).

Titchy - Well you make a very good point. Why aren't state school children encouraged to apply to Oxbridge and research universities, in spite of their children being apparently bright enough.

I suspect it is down to the lack of rigour in their A level subject choices as UCAS points. There are A levels and there are A levels.

Paolo'sgirl, no not NE, central, same one as Andy Murray! who says state school pupil's don't achieve at the top level, (Miss Scotland went there too but I'm a bit ambivalent about that as a claim to fame).

The point about state schools is that there is such a wide range of ability, yes there may be lots of slackers and a few headcases in the lower years (there were at my top state school too) but they LEAVE and let the brainy or hardworking kids get on with it for the last two years (usually in smallish classes with the better teachers), if you want to know if a school will get your kids into uni don't look at the plain stats, go and visit and be shown round by kids in the sixth form, you will probably be pleasantly surprised. The average committed middle class parents will get the most out of their kids schools, state or private.

Swedes - I agree, the brightest shoudl be encouraged. But don't forget that comprehensives by definition cater for a whole range of ability, a few will be bright enough to go to Oxbridge, a sligthly larger proportion to other Russell groups, some more to decent pre-92 non-Russells, another group will only be capable of two or three lower grade AL, so will tend towards the post-92s (with a few excetpionts there is still a divide...), and a few 6th formers will not be capable of anything remotely academic.

In a private or selective school there is likely to be far higher proportions of each of the first three grops I mention, so naturally there'll be more going to Oxbridge (which of course in itself perpetuates the belief amongst the younger pupils that they can achive that too). So whilst a few Oxbridge capable comprehensive children may have gone had they been encourgaed to, for a far greater propoertion Oxbridge is simply not achievable. So I don't think you can simply target all state school 6th formers and say 'aim for Oxbridge', but the few that will be capable shoudl certainly be encouraged. And actually I would argue are encourgaed for the most part, by their 6th form teachers anyway, if not their parents who may not have the life experience to know about the kudos of Oxbridge, or what a Russell group or post-92 institution is.

What about the University of Warwick research, confirmed again in another recent report, that, once at university, state educated children out perform their independent schooled counterparts.

I'm happy to believe that, Maria

It's intersting now, as someone who interviews potential employees, having a private education makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to whether a candidate will get the job.

Ah but having the private education in the first place gives some very average pupils higher grade GCSEs/A levels than they would have achieved in the 'bog' standard comp, thus opening the doors to get to good university and interview in the first place. Glad to hear it doesn't make any difference to the getting of the job.

My DD, just graduated from Russell Group university, can confirm that the state educated erm 'manage' a lot better at independent thinking, writing essays, passin exams. The lecturers all know that.

I think there's no doubt that the independently educated are sat on (and spanked ) and are thus unused to independent study. But we aren't arguing about the differences once they get there are we. We are trying to assess whether a state education is just as likely as a state education, to get you to one of the top universities?

It depends if your definition of blooming means getting into one of the top universities. Personally I'd much rather they were blooming as happy, rounded individuals persuing a life they enjoyed rather than being shoe-horned into gaining a place at a top university. There is so much more to life...

As someone else has said obviously there are going to be more realistic contenders for the top universities from selective schools (whether state or private) because they have already selected the 'brightest'.

I think most decent comprehensives DO encourage pupils to apply to top universities and many are successful, IF they are bright enough. I get your point, Swedes, about not doing the 'right' A levels to start with and that is the dreadful thing these days is that some pupils are being encouraged to aim high, whilst also being encouraged to take 'softer' subjects which won't be accepted by top universities....but that, again, is another discussion.

If a bright child is supported by parents(who happen to be 'in the know' as far as university applications go) and teachers etc then they will do just as well anywhere, but if peer pressure kicks in and they find being bright isn't 'cool' then it all becomes v difficult. In selective schools that problem is taken away to a certain degree as they are all much of a muchness in their intelligence, in fact the pressure is off them a bit because they are not all vying to be in the 'top set' or whatever (talking about state grammar school here).

This is all assuming the OP is concerned with university entrance eventually.

"What about the University of Warwick research, confirmed again in another recent report, that, once at university, state educated children out perform their independent schooled counterparts."

That maybe the case but I'd like to see the stats on what percentage of state v's private go to University in the first place ?
My feeling is that indie and grammar schools (which would count for state stats) make up the majority.

If education at an independent school gives average pupils better results than they would have got otherwose surely this is a good thing - or is it better that an average child does not achieve better than predicted??
Shame about seeing getting a chld into a 'good university' seems to be seen as the yardstick for educational excellence on here - edcuation only in is a VERY narrow sense.

If education at an independent school gives average pupils better results than they would have got otherwose surely this is a good thing - or is it better that an average child does not achieve better than predicted??
Shame about seeing getting a chld into a 'good university' seems to be seen as the yardstick for educational excellence on here - edcuation only in is a VERY narrow sense.

Agree - education is so much more than simply getting into a top university imo.

Shame about seeing getting a chld into a 'good university' seems to be seen as the yardstick for educational excellence on here - edcuation only in is a VERY narrow sense.

I disagree my university days were the happiest and most important days of my life. I work in Hr and do not kid yourselves that it doesn't matter which university they attend, the cream often doesn't even get past the HR assistant with her highlighter pen (who probably hasn't even been to university at all), never mind rise to the top.

So the yardstick is getting a 'good job' and impressing some jumped up 'HR Assistant' even more depressing... you can keep that...

Fortuntately many organisations are structured in such a way as to ensure that the best does rise to the top, regardless of which school they went to.

Absolutely whereeverIlaymyhat.

MrsGuyofGibsbourne, the point I am making is that if you send your average child to a private school you will probably get better grades out of them than at an average comp(that, to a certain degree, is what you are paying the money for) This doesn't make said
child any brighter, but it does open doors to further education etc.

The main point is that IT ISN'T FAIR.

However, I know everyone will leap on me and say 'life isn't fair' etc but that is the one big, big problem I personally have with paying for education, and this argument goes round and round in circles in these kinds of debates on here.

Far, far too much emphasis is placed on Oxbridge IMO. At a private school it sometimes seems that's all they care about. Going to Oxbridge is a great way to put off entering the real world. Some people (me included) place more value on meeting real people in a more diverse and interesting environment. Hence I was offered a place at Cambridge and I turned it down in favour of London. Unheard of at my school and they were not happy, not one bit.

There does seem to be a lot of emphasis on the end result of school rather than the process. To be honest, I'm fairly confident that my sons would get pretty much the same exam grades if they went to our local poorly regarded state secondary as they would at a selective independent (they might even be more likely to get into a good university because of their 'disadvantage') - but they won't have the same experience.

There are probably elements of their experience at the local school that would be preferable to that at the private school (broader range of people to mix with etc), but I'm certain that overall they'll have a better time at the private school.

I find the suggestion that anyone who went to a private school or Oxbridge is somehow not 'real' rather odd. If you cut me do I not bleed?

A good school, private or state, will offer a 'good experience' if the the pupil and the parents are willing and motivated. If you want the school to be responsible for all the 'extras' such as sport, art, drama and so on, then it may be that a private school can offer more. However, if the extras are not so important, state schools can and do offer fantastic education and experiences.